baseline_generation
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
baseline_generation [2020/04/25 06:45] – matsz | baseline_generation [2022/11/07 10:23] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* The second example is that of FAPRI model, where a so-called melting down meeting is organised where the modellers responsible for specific parts of the system come together with market experts. Results are discussed, parameters and assumptions changed until there is consensus. Little is known about how the process works exactly, but both examples underline the interaction between model mechanisms and ex-ante expectations of market experts. | * The second example is that of FAPRI model, where a so-called melting down meeting is organised where the modellers responsible for specific parts of the system come together with market experts. Results are discussed, parameters and assumptions changed until there is consensus. Little is known about how the process works exactly, but both examples underline the interaction between model mechanisms and ex-ante expectations of market experts. | ||
- | As is the case in other agencies, the CAPRI baseline is also fed by external (“expert”) forecasts, as well as by trend forecasts using data from the national ‘COCO’ and regionalized CAPREG databases (Chapters | + | As is the case in other agencies, the CAPRI baseline is also fed by external (“expert”) forecasts, as well as by trend forecasts using data from the national ‘COCO’ and regionalized CAPREG databases (sections |
=====Overview of CAPRI baseline processes===== | =====Overview of CAPRI baseline processes===== | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
**Figure 10: Overview of CAPRI baseline process** | **Figure 10: Overview of CAPRI baseline process** | ||
- | {{:: | + | {{:: |
The forecast tool CAPTRD uses the consolidated national and regional time series from COCO and CAPREG together with external projections from the AgLink model. The result is a projection for the key variables in the agricultural sector (activity levels and market balances) of all regions in the supply models (EU+) that is consistent with the supply model equations. | The forecast tool CAPTRD uses the consolidated national and regional time series from COCO and CAPREG together with external projections from the AgLink model. The result is a projection for the key variables in the agricultural sector (activity levels and market balances) of all regions in the supply models (EU+) that is consistent with the supply model equations. | ||
- | - Next task is the market model calibration. That task uses the same AgLink projections, | + | - Next task is the market model calibration. That task uses the same AgLink projections, |
- The third task is the calibration of the supply models. This step also uses the regional data base, regional trends, and policy files, and calibrates various technical and behavioural economic parameters of the supply models so that the projected regional production is the optimal production at the producer prices coming from the market model calibration. | - The third task is the calibration of the supply models. This step also uses the regional data base, regional trends, and policy files, and calibrates various technical and behavioural economic parameters of the supply models so that the projected regional production is the optimal production at the producer prices coming from the market model calibration. | ||
- Finally, the modeller typically wants to perform a simulation using all the calibrated parameters and projected data. The purpose is twofold: to verify that the calibration of the baseline worked as intended and to generate all reports for inspection in the GUI. | - Finally, the modeller typically wants to perform a simulation using all the calibrated parameters and projected data. The purpose is twofold: to verify that the calibration of the baseline worked as intended and to generate all reports for inspection in the GUI. | ||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
* //Expost//: defined from the length of the series in CAPREG output // | * //Expost//: defined from the length of the series in CAPREG output // | ||
* //Exante//: covering any sequence of intermediate result years up to the user specified final year((For technical reasons some years are “obligatory” result years, for example the year immediately following after the last ex post year.)). | * //Exante//: covering any sequence of intermediate result years up to the user specified final year((For technical reasons some years are “obligatory” result years, for example the year immediately following after the last ex post year.)). | ||
- | * // | + | * // |
* // | * // | ||
Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
\end{equation} | \end{equation} | ||
- | The weighting with the trend was introduced in the exploration phase based on the following considerations and experience. First of all, it reflects the fact that statistics from the early years (mid eighties) are often less reliable then those from later years. Secondly, even if they are reliable, older data will tend to contribute less useful information than more recent ones due to ongoing structural change. For this reason we have discarded any years before 1992 for the New MS, for example, but the data from the mid 90ies may nonetheless represent a situation of transition that should count less than the recent past. In technical terms the step 1 estimates are found by a grid search over selected values of parameter c with analytical OLS estimates for parameters a and b (see //‘captrd\estimate_trends.gms’// | + | The weighting with the trend was introduced in the exploration phase based on the following considerations and experience. First of all, it reflects the fact that statistics from the early years (mid eighties) are often less reliable then those from later years. Secondly, even if they are reliable, older data will tend to contribute less useful information than more recent ones due to ongoing structural change. For this reason we have discarded any years before 1992 for the New MS, for example, but the data from the mid 90ies may nonetheless represent a situation of transition that should count less than the recent past. In technical terms the step 1 estimates are found by a grid search over selected values of parameter c with analytical OLS estimates for parameters a and b (see //‘captrd/estimate_trends.gms’// |
====Step 2.1: Consistency constraints in the trend projection tool==== | ====Step 2.1: Consistency constraints in the trend projection tool==== | ||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
The confidence interval from the Step 1 trend estimation will not help, as it will be centred around the last projection value and as it will simply be quite large in case of a bad R². However, we may use the idea underlying the usual test statistics for the parameters related to the trend (// | The confidence interval from the Step 1 trend estimation will not help, as it will be centred around the last projection value and as it will simply be quite large in case of a bad R². However, we may use the idea underlying the usual test statistics for the parameters related to the trend (// | ||
- | This reasoning is the basis for the supports derived from the Step 1 estimates in CAPTRD (// | + | This reasoning is the basis for the supports derived from the Step 1 estimates in CAPTRD (// |
\begin{equation} | \begin{equation} | ||
Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
How is this rule motivated? If R² for a certain time series is 100%, in other words: for a perfect fit, the restricted trend estimate is fully drawn towards the unrestricted Step 1 estimate. If R² is zero, the trend curve does not explain any of the weighted variance of the series. Consequently, | How is this rule motivated? If R² for a certain time series is 100%, in other words: for a perfect fit, the restricted trend estimate is fully drawn towards the unrestricted Step 1 estimate. If R² is zero, the trend curve does not explain any of the weighted variance of the series. Consequently, | ||
- | The above definition of supports works for series with //expost// data from CAPREG only as well as for those series with an extended set of observations (// | + | The above definition of supports works for series with //expost// data from CAPREG only as well as for those series with an extended set of observations (// |
Our objective function for Step 2 will be the sum of squared deviations from the supports defined above, weighted with the variance of the error terms from the first step: | Our objective function for Step 2 will be the sum of squared deviations from the supports defined above, weighted with the variance of the error terms from the first step: | ||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
The constraints in the trend projection enforce mutual compatibility between baseline forecasts for individual series in the light of relations between these series, either based on definitions as ‘production equals yield times area’ or on technical relations between series as the balance between energy deliveries from feed use and energy requirements from the animal herds. The set of constraints is deemed to be exhaustive in the sense as any further restriction would either not add information or require data beyond those available. The underlying data set takes into account all agricultural activities and products according to the definition of the Economic Accounts for Agriculture. | The constraints in the trend projection enforce mutual compatibility between baseline forecasts for individual series in the light of relations between these series, either based on definitions as ‘production equals yield times area’ or on technical relations between series as the balance between energy deliveries from feed use and energy requirements from the animal herds. The set of constraints is deemed to be exhaustive in the sense as any further restriction would either not add information or require data beyond those available. The underlying data set takes into account all agricultural activities and products according to the definition of the Economic Accounts for Agriculture. | ||
- | The constraints discussed in the following (from //‘captrd\equations.gms’// | + | The constraints discussed in the following (from //‘captrd/equations.gms’// |
===Constraints relating to market balances and yields=== | ===Constraints relating to market balances and yields=== | ||
- | Closed market balances (CAPTRD eq. MBAL_) define the first set of constraints and state that the sum of imports (IMPT) and production (GROF) must be equal to the sum of feed (FEDM) and seed (SEDM) use, human consumption (HCOM), processing (INDM, | + | Closed market balances (CAPTRD eq. MBAL_ ) define the first set of constraints and state that the sum of imports (IMPT) and production (GROF) must be equal to the sum of feed (FEDM) and seed (SEDM) use, human consumption (HCOM), processing (INDM, |
\begin{align} | \begin{align} | ||
Line 334: | Line 334: | ||
===Constraints relating to growth rates=== | ===Constraints relating to growth rates=== | ||
- | During estimation, a number of safeguards regarding the size of the implicit growth rates had been introduced in the course of various past CAPRI projects (bounds mainly found in //‘captrd\fix_est.gms’// | + | During estimation, a number of safeguards regarding the size of the implicit growth rates had been introduced in the course of various past CAPRI projects (bounds mainly found in //‘captrd/fix_est.gms’// |
* In general, input or output coefficients (yields) are not allowed to change by more than +/- 2.5 % per annum, with a higher ranges for feed input coefficients (+/- 10 % and +/ 5 % for non-marketable fodder). | * In general, input or output coefficients (yields) are not allowed to change by more than +/- 2.5 % per annum, with a higher ranges for feed input coefficients (+/- 10 % and +/ 5 % for non-marketable fodder). | ||
Line 340: | Line 340: | ||
* The number of young cows (or sows) needed for replacement may only change up to +/ 20 % around the base period value until the last projection year. | * The number of young cows (or sows) needed for replacement may only change up to +/ 20 % around the base period value until the last projection year. | ||
* Final fattening weights must fall into a corridor of +/- 20% around the base period value. | * Final fattening weights must fall into a corridor of +/- 20% around the base period value. | ||
- | * Milk yields are assumed to increase at least by 0.25% and at most by 1.25% near the EU average with some correction for below or above average initial yields (in //‘captrd\comibounds.gms’// | + | * Milk yields are assumed to increase at least by 0.25% and at most by 1.25% near the EU average with some correction for below or above average initial yields (in //‘captrd/comibounds.gms’// |
* Crop yields (except those of very hererogeneous crops like “other fruits” or “other fodder on arable land) should have a minimum yield growth of 0.5%. | * Crop yields (except those of very hererogeneous crops like “other fruits” or “other fodder on arable land) should have a minimum yield growth of 0.5%. | ||
* Specific (and quite generous) upper limits are applied to prevent unrealistic crop yields (for example: 15 tons/ha for cereals) | * Specific (and quite generous) upper limits are applied to prevent unrealistic crop yields (for example: 15 tons/ha for cereals) | ||
Line 360: | Line 360: | ||
* Total labour must not deviate by more than 5% from forecasts based on coefficients estimated in an earlier study (“CAPRI-DYNASPAT”). | * Total labour must not deviate by more than 5% from forecasts based on coefficients estimated in an earlier study (“CAPRI-DYNASPAT”). | ||
* Changes in human consumption per caput for each of the products cannot exceed a growth rate of +/- 2% per annum. Due to some strong and rather implausible trends for total meat and total cereals consumption, | * Changes in human consumption per caput for each of the products cannot exceed a growth rate of +/- 2% per annum. Due to some strong and rather implausible trends for total meat and total cereals consumption, | ||
- | * A downward sloping corridor is defined for subsistence consumption of raw milk (in ‘captrd\comibounds.gms’). | + | * A downward sloping corridor is defined for subsistence consumption of raw milk (in ‘captrd/comibounds.gms’). |
* Changes in prices are not allowed to exceed a growth rate of +/- 2% per annum, usually. | * Changes in prices are not allowed to exceed a growth rate of +/- 2% per annum, usually. | ||
- | * Expert supports for biofuel related variables are given high priority with mostly tight corridors around these supports (in //‘captrd\biobounds.gms’// | + | * Expert supports for biofuel related variables are given high priority with mostly tight corridors around these supports (in //‘captrd/biobounds.gms’// |
* If a variable has dropped to zero according to recent COCO data it will be fixed to zero. | * If a variable has dropped to zero according to recent COCO data it will be fixed to zero. | ||
Line 369: | Line 369: | ||
The definition of expert “supports” allows for provision of a mean and a standard deviation for all elements, and it is particularly useful for items for which the AgLink forcasts in step 3 are missing, or where there are other reasons for stability problems, such as missing historical data or very short time series | The definition of expert “supports” allows for provision of a mean and a standard deviation for all elements, and it is particularly useful for items for which the AgLink forcasts in step 3 are missing, or where there are other reasons for stability problems, such as missing historical data or very short time series | ||
- | The expert supports are dealt with in //’captrd\expert_support.gms’// | + | The expert supports are dealt with in //’captrd/expert_support.gms’// |
* Support for the development of the sugar and sugar beet sectors, evolved from a small study with the seed production company KWS | * Support for the development of the sugar and sugar beet sectors, evolved from a small study with the seed production company KWS | ||
Line 459: | Line 459: | ||
In Step 3, results from external projections on market balance positions (production, | In Step 3, results from external projections on market balance positions (production, | ||
- | Integration of results from another modelling system is a challenging exercise as neither data nor definitions of products and market balance positions are fully harmonized. That holds especially for Aglink-COSIMO, | + | Integration of results from another modelling system is a challenging exercise as neither data nor definitions of products and market balance positions are fully harmonized. That holds especially for Aglink-COSIMO, |
Aglink-COSIMO currently features results at EU15 and EU12 level. It is hence not possible to funnel the Aglink-COSIMO results into Step 2 above without an assumption of the share of the individual Member States. | Aglink-COSIMO currently features results at EU15 and EU12 level. It is hence not possible to funnel the Aglink-COSIMO results into Step 2 above without an assumption of the share of the individual Member States. | ||
Line 483: | Line 483: | ||
The Aglink-COSIMO projections currently run to 2020 or a few years beyond. For climate related applications CAPRI has to tackle projections up to 2030 or even 2050. CAPRI projections up to 2030 have been prepared in the context of EC4MACS project ([[http:// | The Aglink-COSIMO projections currently run to 2020 or a few years beyond. For climate related applications CAPRI has to tackle projections up to 2030 or even 2050. CAPRI projections up to 2030 have been prepared in the context of EC4MACS project ([[http:// | ||
- | For the long run evolution of food production a link has been established to long run projections from two major agencies (FAO 2006 and the IMPACT projections in Rosegrant et al 2009, see also Rosegrant et al 2008). This linkage required mappings to bridge differences in definitions (see //‘gams\global\f2050_impact.gms’// | + | For the long run evolution of food production a link has been established to long run projections from two major agencies (FAO 2006 and the IMPACT projections in Rosegrant et al 2009, see also Rosegrant et al 2008). This linkage required mappings to bridge differences in definitions (see //‘gams/global/f2050_impact.gms’// |
- | Furthermore, | + | Furthermore, |
**Figure 11: Pork production in Hungary as an example for merging medium run and long run a priori information in the CAPRI baseline approach** | **Figure 11: Pork production in Hungary as an example for merging medium run and long run a priori information in the CAPRI baseline approach** | ||
- | {{::figure11.png?600|}} \\ Source: own elaboration | + | {{::figure_11.png? |
The example has been chosen because historical trends (and Aglink-COSIMO projections) on the one hand and long run expectations differ markedly. This is not unusual because medium run forecasts often give a stronger weight to recent production trends, often indicating a stagnating or declining production in the EU, whereas the long run studies tend to focus on the global growth of food demand in the coming decades. The simple trends (filled triangles) would evidently give unreasonable, | The example has been chosen because historical trends (and Aglink-COSIMO projections) on the one hand and long run expectations differ markedly. This is not unusual because medium run forecasts often give a stronger weight to recent production trends, often indicating a stagnating or declining production in the EU, whereas the long run studies tend to focus on the global growth of food demand in the coming decades. The simple trends (filled triangles) would evidently give unreasonable, | ||
Line 527: | Line 527: | ||
In order to keep developments at regional and national level comparable, relative changes in activity levels are not allowed to deviate very far from the national development. These bounds are widened in cases of infeasibilities. | In order to keep developments at regional and national level comparable, relative changes in activity levels are not allowed to deviate very far from the national development. These bounds are widened in cases of infeasibilities. | ||
- | Table below contains an example of the final output of the trends estimation task (C:\....CAPRI\STAR\star_2.4\output\results\baseline\results_BBYY.gdx), | + | Table below contains an example of the final output of the trends estimation task (C:/....CAPRI/STAR/star_2.4/output/results/baseline/results_BBYY.gdx), |
**Table 24: Example of the final output of the trends estimation task and description of the variables** | **Table 24: Example of the final output of the trends estimation task and description of the variables** | ||
Line 559: | Line 559: | ||
After the Task on Trends generation have been successfully completed, meaning that the projections for the defined (in GUI or a batch file) future years (currently, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 are available) have been produced, the next step in the Baseline generation process (" | After the Task on Trends generation have been successfully completed, meaning that the projections for the defined (in GUI or a batch file) future years (currently, 2015, 2020, 2025 and 2030 are available) have been produced, the next step in the Baseline generation process (" | ||
- | The calibration of the market model is steered by the C:\...\CAPRI\gams\capmod.gms file. The relevant parts of the code are activated by setting the setglobal ' | + | The calibration of the market model is steered by the C:/.../CAPRI/gams/capmod.gms file. The relevant parts of the code are activated by setting the setglobal ' |
====Stage I: Data preparation and balancing==== | ====Stage I: Data preparation and balancing==== | ||
Line 577: | Line 577: | ||
===Data preparation=== | ===Data preparation=== | ||
- | Before actually performing the calibration of the market model parameters, CAPRI first loads the necessary sets, parameters and data. These refer to periods (years), regions, activities, commodities, | + | Before actually performing the calibration of the market model parameters, CAPRI first loads the necessary sets, parameters and data. These refer to periods (years), regions, activities, commodities, |
Constraints, | Constraints, | ||
- | Next, FAO data on the non-European countries as well as the trade flows among all of the countries (country trade blocks) accounted for in CAPRI are loaded. These FAO data together with the European data, which has already been subjected to certain adjustments as described in the previous paragraph, undergo the, so-called, data preparation step. This process is controlled by C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\market1.gms file which calls the C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\data_prep.gms file - specifically for this step. The data preparation step mostly refers to the base year and includes: among else, modification of GDP to fit the sum of final household expenditure, | + | Next, FAO data on the non-European countries as well as the trade flows among all of the countries (country trade blocks) accounted for in CAPRI are loaded. These FAO data together with the European data, which has already been subjected to certain adjustments as described in the previous paragraph, undergo the, so-called, data preparation step. This process is controlled by C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/market1.gms file which calls the C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/data_prep.gms file - specifically for this step. The data preparation step mostly refers to the base year and includes: among else, modification of GDP to fit the sum of final household expenditure, |
- | Together with the data, equations of the CAPRI market module are loaded. They are described in detail in section [[Market module for agricultural outputs]]. These equations include behavioural functions for market demand including expenditure function, feed demand, blocks for dairy products, oilseeds processing and biofuels, netput functions, trade equations and balances, equations for prices and price transmission, | + | Together with the data, equations of the CAPRI market module are loaded. They are described in detail in section [[scenario simulation#Market module for agricultural outputs]]. These equations include behavioural functions for market demand including expenditure function, feed demand, blocks for dairy products, oilseeds processing and biofuels, netput functions, trade equations and balances, equations for prices and price transmission, |
===Data balancing=== | ===Data balancing=== | ||
- | After data preparation, | + | After data preparation, |
//Data balancing for the base year// \\ | //Data balancing for the base year// \\ | ||
Line 593: | Line 593: | ||
Data calibration for the base year aims at modifying the base year data to fit the system of equations of the market module. Some of the parameters defined in Stage I (e.g., p_rhoX) as well as parameter values and bounds defined at this stage are used. For example, starting points and corridors for quantity variables are set (e.g., calculating of world production to define correction corridor for calibration of production/ | Data calibration for the base year aims at modifying the base year data to fit the system of equations of the market module. Some of the parameters defined in Stage I (e.g., p_rhoX) as well as parameter values and bounds defined at this stage are used. For example, starting points and corridors for quantity variables are set (e.g., calculating of world production to define correction corridor for calibration of production/ | ||
- | With the file C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\cal_models.gms, | + | With the file C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/cal_models.gms, |
The model that calibrates base year data (MODEL m_calMarketBas) is defined in cal_models.gms file as well and includes almost all equations of the market model. In particular: equations for processing margin for dairy products (ProcMargM_), | The model that calibrates base year data (MODEL m_calMarketBas) is defined in cal_models.gms file as well and includes almost all equations of the market model. In particular: equations for processing margin for dairy products (ProcMargM_), | ||
Line 599: | Line 599: | ||
The NSSQ equation is crucial to the data calibration as it, in its essence, minimizes the difference between the estimated and the observed (already adjusted at the previous stage) data of the base year. Its logic is analogues to the one of equation below: | The NSSQ equation is crucial to the data calibration as it, in its essence, minimizes the difference between the estimated and the observed (already adjusted at the previous stage) data of the base year. Its logic is analogues to the one of equation below: | ||
- | FIXME im dokument nicht nummeriert | ||
\begin{equation} | \begin{equation} | ||
SSQ\cdot \sum_{RMS} \sum_{XXX} p\_weight_{RMS}^i=\sum_{RMS} \sum_{XXX} \left( \frac{v_{RMS, | SSQ\cdot \sum_{RMS} \sum_{XXX} p\_weight_{RMS}^i=\sum_{RMS} \sum_{XXX} \left( \frac{v_{RMS, | ||
\end{equation} | \end{equation} | ||
- | where SSQ is an artificial variable to be minimized, indices RMS, XXX, BAS and i indicate, respectively, | + | where SSQ is an artificial variable to be minimized, indices RMS, XXX, BAS and i indicate, respectively, |
- | The process of model solving is navigated with C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\data_fit.gms file. Its main function is to assure model solving by keeping the market balances closed and price system consistent. Because of the very large number of equations with the exact similar number of variables (36 thsds) that makes the system of equations square, as well as non-linear formulation of some of the equations, it is very likely that infeasibilities will occur during the model solving. To ensure the feasibility as far as possible, code elements such as widening of variable bounds, once they become binding, reducing non-smoothness of the functional forms and introduction of slack variables are introduced. More detailed information on this process can be found in a technical document by Wolfgang Britz and Heinz-Peter Witzke // | + | The process of model solving is navigated with C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/data_fit.gms file. Its main function is to assure model solving by keeping the market balances closed and price system consistent. Because of the very large number of equations with the exact similar number of variables (36 thsds) that makes the system of equations square, as well as non-linear formulation of some of the equations, it is very likely that infeasibilities will occur during the model solving. To ensure the feasibility as far as possible, code elements such as widening of variable bounds, once they become binding, reducing non-smoothness of the functional forms and introduction of slack variables are introduced. More detailed information on this process can be found in a technical document by Wolfgang Britz and Heinz-Peter Witzke // |
- | After solving the MODEL m_calMarketBas, | + | After solving the MODEL m_calMarketBas, |
+ | |||
+ | //Data balancing for the simulation year// \\ | ||
- | Data balancing for the simulation year \\ | ||
Aim of data calibration for the simulation year aims at generating such quantity, price and other market values (see list below) for the simulation year that they fit the system of equations of the market module and variable and parameter lower and upper bounds, as well as remain as close as possible to the values to which they are calibrated (e.g., trends, estimated with growth rates from the base year, Aglink-COSIMO values, GLOBIOM values etc.). Thus process, basically, follows similar approach as for the base year. There are, however, a few differences. The main is that the model used for calibration is MODEL m_calMarketFin. As the model for base year calibration (MODEL m_calMarketBas), | Aim of data calibration for the simulation year aims at generating such quantity, price and other market values (see list below) for the simulation year that they fit the system of equations of the market module and variable and parameter lower and upper bounds, as well as remain as close as possible to the values to which they are calibrated (e.g., trends, estimated with growth rates from the base year, Aglink-COSIMO values, GLOBIOM values etc.). Thus process, basically, follows similar approach as for the base year. There are, however, a few differences. The main is that the model used for calibration is MODEL m_calMarketFin. As the model for base year calibration (MODEL m_calMarketBas), | ||
- | Before MODEL m_calMarketFin is solved, values of DATA parameter for the simulation year are defined. For example, administrative prices for dairy products and cereals and minimum import prices for cereals (in C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\prep_pol.gms) and policy data are defined, market prices, quantity variables are shifted with growth rates (C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\shift_quantities.gms) and tariffs are defined. Bounds for tariff variables, market prices, milk fat and protein as well as upper and lower limits on quantity variables are assigned as well. At this point, models to calibrate TRQs and entry price equations (MODEL m_fitTrq) and parameters of equations for the intervention stock changes (MODEL m_trimInterv) are solved as well (now for the simulation year, as before it was solved for base year values). | + | Before MODEL m_calMarketFin is solved, values of DATA parameter for the simulation year are defined. For example, administrative prices for dairy products and cereals and minimum import prices for cereals (in C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/prep_pol.gms) and policy data are defined, market prices, quantity variables are shifted with growth rates (C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/shift_quantities.gms) and tariffs are defined. Bounds for tariff variables, market prices, milk fat and protein as well as upper and lower limits on quantity variables are assigned as well. At this point, models to calibrate TRQs and entry price equations (MODEL m_fitTrq) and parameters of equations for the intervention stock changes (MODEL m_trimInterv) are solved as well (now for the simulation year, as before it was solved for base year values). |
- | As m_calMarketBas model, m_calMarketFin model is solved by minimizing SSQ value by applying the approach of assuring feasibility via data_fit.gms file. After the solution is found and energy conversion factors for animal products are defined with MODEL m_fitFeedConv, | + | As m_calMarketBas model, m_calMarketFin model is solved by minimizing SSQ value by applying the approach of assuring feasibility via data_fit.gms file. After the solution is found and energy conversion factors for animal products are defined with MODEL m_fitFeedConv, |
====Stage II: Elasticity trimming==== | ====Stage II: Elasticity trimming==== | ||
Line 626: | Line 626: | ||
At first, parameters for land use market are calculated based on data from FAO world food market model. Among them are land use classes, crop yields, land demand of non-crop activities, areas used for fodder and average land price, total energy use for feeding and producer price of feed. Next, starting elasticity values, as well as their lower and upper bounds are loaded (e.g., demand elasticities used in SPEL/MFSS). Finally, elasticities are trimmed. | At first, parameters for land use market are calculated based on data from FAO world food market model. Among them are land use classes, crop yields, land demand of non-crop activities, areas used for fodder and average land price, total energy use for feeding and producer price of feed. Next, starting elasticity values, as well as their lower and upper bounds are loaded (e.g., demand elasticities used in SPEL/MFSS). Finally, elasticities are trimmed. | ||
- | Elasticities trimming is controlled by C:\...\CAPRI\gams\arm\trim_par.gms file. The elasticity groups are: for calibration of demand and supply systems, feed demand system, oilseeds crush, oil processing and dairy industry. Elasticities of supply system, oilseeds crushing, oil processing and dairy industries, as well as for feed demand, are estimated with MODEL m_trimElas. It is solved by minimising absolute squares between given and calibrated elasticities including land elasticities (FitElas_) subject to the following constraints: | + | Elasticities trimming is controlled by C:/.../CAPRI/gams/arm/trim_par.gms file. The elasticity groups are: for calibration of demand and supply systems, feed demand system, oilseeds crush, oil processing and dairy industry. Elasticities of supply system, oilseeds crushing, oil processing and dairy industries, as well as for feed demand, are estimated with MODEL m_trimElas. It is solved by minimising absolute squares between given and calibrated elasticities including land elasticities (FitElas_) subject to the following constraints: |
Human consumption elasticities are estimated with MODEL m_trimDem by minimizing absolute squares between given and calibrated elasticities (FitElas_). Apart from the objective function the model includes several equations related to the definition of the demand system as Generalized Leontief, homogeniety of degree zero for elasticities in prices, additivity of income elasticities weighted with budget shares and elasticities for total calorie intake. | Human consumption elasticities are estimated with MODEL m_trimDem by minimizing absolute squares between given and calibrated elasticities (FitElas_). Apart from the objective function the model includes several equations related to the definition of the demand system as Generalized Leontief, homogeniety of degree zero for elasticities in prices, additivity of income elasticities weighted with budget shares and elasticities for total calorie intake. | ||
Line 636: | Line 636: | ||
The fertilizer flows are also calibrated here. The prior parameters for the fertilizer flows are defined based on the // | The fertilizer flows are also calibrated here. The prior parameters for the fertilizer flows are defined based on the // | ||
- | The file C:\...\CAPRI\gams\capmod\def_fert_and_requirements.gms defines animal nutrient requirements and the nutrient requirements of the crops given trend forecasted yields. In particular, feed input coefficients are defined and calibrated, days in production process of fattening are defined, and manure output is taken into consideration as an input for fertilizer calibration. Fertilizer calibration is basically a merge of trend based forecasts from the ex-post CAPREG results. The fertilizer need is calculated as a function of yield, and adjusted according to the exogenous assumptions. Furthermore, | + | The file C:/.../CAPRI/gams/capmod/def_fert_and_requirements.gms defines animal nutrient requirements and the nutrient requirements of the crops given trend forecasted yields. In particular, feed input coefficients are defined and calibrated, days in production process of fattening are defined, and manure output is taken into consideration as an input for fertilizer calibration. Fertilizer calibration is basically a merge of trend based forecasts from the ex-post CAPREG results. The fertilizer need is calculated as a function of yield, and adjusted according to the exogenous assumptions. Furthermore, |
- | ====tage IV: Initialization and test run==== | + | ====Stage IV: Initialization and test run==== |
After the behavioural blocks of the market model are calibrated (one-by-one), | After the behavioural blocks of the market model are calibrated (one-by-one), | ||
- | At the final stage, some of the starting values and bounds for the market model are set, and agricultural policy data are loaded, adjusted and extended to the simulation year. The policy data include single area payment scheme, set-aside regulations, | + | At the final stage, some of the starting values and bounds for the market model are set, and agricultural policy data are loaded, adjusted and extended to the simulation year. The policy data include single area payment scheme, set-aside regulations, |
====Technical remarks==== | ====Technical remarks==== | ||
Line 654: | Line 654: | ||
====Introduction==== | ====Introduction==== | ||
- | The supply side models of the CAPRI simulation tool are programming models with an objective function. If we want the optimal solution to coincide with the forecast | + | The supply side models of the CAPRI simulation tool are programming models with an objective function. If we want the optimal solution to coincide with the forecast |
- Elements not projected so far but entering the constraints of the supply models (e.g. feed, fertilization) must be defined in such way that constraints are feasible, | - Elements not projected so far but entering the constraints of the supply models (e.g. feed, fertilization) must be defined in such way that constraints are feasible, | ||
Line 662: | Line 662: | ||
====Calibrating feed and fertilizer restrictions==== | ====Calibrating feed and fertilizer restrictions==== | ||
- | The calibration of feed and fertilization restrictions happens in the file //gams\capmod\def_fert_and_requirement.gms.// | + | The calibration of feed and fertilization restrictions happens in the file //gams/capmod/def_fert_and_requirement.gms.// |
It is hence necessary to find a //feed mix// in the projected point which exhausts the projected production of non-tradable feed and the projected feed mix of marketable bulk feeds (cereals, protein feed, …), fits in the requirement constraints and leads to plausible feed cost. In order to do so, the feed allocation framework used to construct the base year allocation of feedstuff to animals is re-used. The resulting factors are stored in external files and reloaded by counterfactual runs. | It is hence necessary to find a //feed mix// in the projected point which exhausts the projected production of non-tradable feed and the projected feed mix of marketable bulk feeds (cereals, protein feed, …), fits in the requirement constraints and leads to plausible feed cost. In order to do so, the feed allocation framework used to construct the base year allocation of feedstuff to animals is re-used. The resulting factors are stored in external files and reloaded by counterfactual runs. | ||
- | Similar to animal feed balance, the crop nutrient needs must be consistent with available projected nutrients from various sources. To find such a feasible point, the distribution of various fertilizer sources (manure, mineral fertilizers and crop residues) to crops estimated in the database (CAPREG), is shifted with changes in crop areas to make a first best guess (prior) of the allocation to crops in the baseline. This prior is used as the modal value of a probability density function of a Bayesian estimation, similar to the CAPREG procedure described in a previous section of the documentation. Thus, a crop nutrient allocation is sought that is in some sense “as similar” to the base year estimate as possible. The result of the fertilizer calibration for the baseline is stored in a GDX file for each country, found in the directory “results\fert”, from where it is loaded in simulations (by the file //gams\capmod\load_fert_baseline.gms// | + | Similar to animal feed balance, the crop nutrient needs must be consistent with available projected nutrients from various sources. To find such a feasible point, the distribution of various fertilizer sources (manure, mineral fertilizers and crop residues) to crops estimated in the database (CAPREG), is shifted with changes in crop areas to make a first best guess (prior) of the allocation to crops in the baseline. This prior is used as the modal value of a probability density function of a Bayesian estimation, similar to the CAPREG procedure described in a previous section of the documentation. Thus, a crop nutrient allocation is sought that is in some sense “as similar” to the base year estimate as possible. The result of the fertilizer calibration for the baseline is stored in a GDX file for each country, found in the directory “results/fert”, from where it is loaded in simulations (by the file //gams/capmod/load_fert_baseline.gms// |
====Calibrating the marginal cost functions==== | ====Calibrating the marginal cost functions==== | ||
Line 705: | Line 705: | ||
**Figure 12: CAPRI settings: read in all the country specific gdx files from the results directory (capmod); load a specified symbol (dataout); store the data back into a gdx file with the same name but without country suffix** | **Figure 12: CAPRI settings: read in all the country specific gdx files from the results directory (capmod); load a specified symbol (dataout); store the data back into a gdx file with the same name but without country suffix** | ||
- | {{:: | + | {{:: |
Then, the GUI can be used in a standard fashion to manually compare the activity levels reported after calibration with those computed in a baseline reproduction run. | Then, the GUI can be used in a standard fashion to manually compare the activity levels reported after calibration with those computed in a baseline reproduction run. | ||
baseline_generation.1587797127.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/11/07 10:23 (external edit)